23.5CLMay 13
Polar probe linearly decodes semantic structures from LLMsPablo J. Diego-Simón, Pierre Orhan, Yair Lakretz et al.
How do artificial neural networks bind concepts to form complex semantic structures? Here, we propose a simple neural code, whereby the existence and the type of relations between entities are represented by the distance and the direction between their embeddings, respectively. We test this hypothesis in a variety of Large Language Models (LLMs), each input with natural-language descriptions of minimalist tasks from five different domains: arithmetic, visual scenes, family trees, metro maps and social interactions. Results show that the true semantic structures can be linearly recovered with a Polar Probe targeting a subspace of LLMs' layer activations. Second, this code emerges mostly in middle layers and improves with LLM performance. Third, these Polar Probes successfully generalize to new entities and relation types, but degrades with the size of the semantic structure. Finally, the quality of the polar representation correlates with the LLM's ability to answer questions about the semantic structure. Together, these findings suggest that LLMs learn to build complex semantic structures by binding representations with a simple geometrical principle.
CLAug 5, 2025
Probing Syntax in Large Language Models: Successes and Remaining ChallengesPablo J. Diego-Simón, Emmanuel Chemla, Jean-Rémi King et al.
The syntactic structures of sentences can be readily read-out from the activations of large language models (LLMs). However, the ``structural probes'' that have been developed to reveal this phenomenon are typically evaluated on an indiscriminate set of sentences. Consequently, it remains unclear whether structural and/or statistical factors systematically affect these syntactic representations. To address this issue, we conduct an in-depth analysis of structural probes on three controlled benchmarks. Our results are three-fold. First, structural probes are biased by a superficial property: the closer two words are in a sentence, the more likely structural probes will consider them as syntactically linked. Second, structural probes are challenged by linguistic properties: they poorly represent deep syntactic structures, and get interfered by interacting nouns or ungrammatical verb forms. Third, structural probes do not appear to be affected by the predictability of individual words. Overall, this work sheds light on the current challenges faced by structural probes. Providing a benchmark made of controlled stimuli to better evaluate their performance.